UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4484

CLARENCE EUGENE LAYTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.

William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-190)

Submitted: December 30, 1998

Decided: January 20, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellant. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Eugene Layton pleaded guilty to armed robbery of a

bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (1994), and using or carrying a weapon during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 924(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). The court sentenced Layton to

ninety months' imprisonment followed by five years of supervised

release and a special assessment of $200, and Layton appeals his conviction and sentence. Layton's counsel filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two possible issues

for review, but indicating that there are no meritorious issues for

appeal. Layton was notified of his opportunity to file his own supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Layton's attorney first raises the question of whether the district

court complied with requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure when taking Layton's plea. A review of the

record discloses that the court conducted the plea hearing in accordance with Rule 11. At the beginning of the hearing, the court

inquired as to Layton's competence and his understanding of the proceedings. The court then informed Layton of the charges against him,

the elements of the offense, and the maximum possible sentence. Layton stated that he understood the charges and that he was also satisfied

with his attorney's representation. We therefore find that the district

court complied with Rule 11.

Layton's attorney next raises the issue of whether the district court

erred in sentencing Layton. A review of the record discloses that Layton's sentence was properly calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines and does not exceed the maximum allowed by the Guidelines or

the applicable statutes. Further, this court cannot review a sentence

within a correctly calculated guidelines sentence range that is also

within the statutory maximum penalty. See United States v. Porter,

909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). Thus, this claim is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm Layton's convictions and sentence. In

accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the

entire record in this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

 2
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3